Ch 37: Q 6
Stephen Wainger is a former partner of the law firm Glasser & Glasser. According to the partner ship agreement, a withdrawing partner is entitled to compensation for “any undivided profits of the firm with respect to uncollected fees which were fully earned by the firm prior to the effective date of his withdrawal, but which fees are received by the firm subsequent to such date.” Before leaving the firm, Wainger worked on several asbestos com- pensation cases. After he left the partnership, the cases were settled and the firm received significant profits. Wainger argued that he should be compen- sated for his work despite the fact that he left the firm before the settlement of the cases. Do you agree? The trial court found that Wainger was enti- tled only to fees that had been fully earned at the time of his withdrawal. How do you think the court decided the case on appeal? [Wainger v. Glasser & Glasser, 462 S.E.2d 62 (1995).]
Ch 37 : Q 7
Astroline Company, a limited partnership, is in the investment business. Astroline heard of an opportunity to purchase the license to a television station, and the company developed a second limited partnership. Astroline Communications Company, to purchase the station. Astroline provided the fund- ing for Astroline Communications but remained a limited partner of the company. Astroline Communications began to experience financial problems and filed for bankruptcy. Do you think the court found Astroline Company, as a limited partner. liable for Astroline Communications Company’s debts? Why or why not? [In re Astroline Communications Company Limited Partnership, 188 BR 98 (1995).]
Required in the following questions:
For each assigned case, write an analysis of the issue based on the following criteria:
Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
Be prepared to defend your decision and objectively evaluate the other points of view.
